• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which is a bigger waste of a vote?

Which is a bigger waste of a vote?

  • Voting for someone who won't win?

    Votes: 13 38.2%

  • Voting for someone you don't like?

    Votes: 21 61.8%
  • Total voters
    34
This year is the best example I have seen to date as to why voting major party for the sake of voting major party is corrupt and has led us to where we are.

I will caveat that. If you sincerely ponder your vote and believe not only that the party platform you align yourself with is most directly connected to your political beliefs but also that the candidate you are voting for supports those ideas...by all means...vote major party.

The GOP have been stuck with a candidate that the party did not want. Thats really their fault. The GOP has squandered their party voters faith by not being an effective governing branch and not acting responsibly in congress. When presented with 17 different options, GOP voters focused on the one that was most unlike a typical party shill than all the rest. i dont think people 'like' Trump, but they believe him when he says he will address the illegal immigration problem. or that he will actually speak the words terrorist attack and will work to prevent terrorists from entering the country. He has business sense so when he talks about jobs creation it is different from what they are used to. And frankly...the OP base just doesnt trust the GOP.

The democrat voter base is also fairly well divided. Only the most myopic partisan muppets actually like the job congress is doing...ANY of them. Many were very willing and eager to turn to Bernie Sanders. Most of them will eat that **** brownie and vote for Hilary...but they will hate it in the process because they really cant stand her. It didnt help when it was disclosed that Sanders was being butt****ed by the DNC and that the whole process is being undermined by media posing as 'journalists' that are colluding with the DNC.

If you vote for the GOP after all this mess...nothing will change. If you vote for Hillary after KNOWING the whole thing was a sham...same deal.

THATS a waste, IMO.
 
Opopanax said:
The analogy stands fine as is. The point was made, you know what I meant.



Why don't I vote for my neighbor then? He's a person. And statistically speaking, he has the same chance to win as Gary Johnson. And his name appeared on my ballot with the same frequency as third party candidates. So sure, I'll vote for him. Because he's a person.
Click to expand...

Gary Johnson is at 2% or something like that. Statistically your neighbor is not known by most people and his name wont be on any ballots where Gary Johnson will be on most. Statistically speaking they don't have the same chance.

Also my point is that if everyone voted for the candidate they liked rather than just a party then his chances (and other candidate chances) wouldn't be so low.
 
Option 2: Voting for someone you don't like.

I take this as meaning "voting for someone whose policies, ideals, and/or positions you do not agree with".


The reverse of this is voting for someone because you dislike the person who seems most likely to win the election if they do not. Yet you're still voting for someone you disagree with, and that is unacceptable to me.
 
Kreton said:
Gary Johnson is at 2% or something like that. Statistically your neighbor is not known by most people and his name wont be on any ballots where Gary Johnson will be on most. Statistically speaking they don't have the same chance.

Also my point is that if everyone voted for the candidate they liked rather than just a party then his chances (and other candidate chances) wouldn't be so low.
Click to expand...

Which is why political parties in general should be done away with.

Parties are not NECESSARY. They are like voting for which street gang you want to run the country, which gang you want to be dominate in the Washington "turf wars".

We should move to a system where we are voting for PEOPLE. But it is so much easier for the ignorant Reality TV voter to just align themselves with a party and not have to do any research than it is to learn what each candidate at each level of government stands for.

Instead we have state legislature members running on a platform that conforms to NATIONAL politics, but none of those national issues are relevant to their state's specific problems... and idiots vote based upon that.

We also have guys and gals that hold very sensible positions on major issues, but because those positions they hold on the issues are CROSS PARTY, they don't stand a ****ing chance in hell of getting elected because they might be, lets say, in support of lowering spending but heaven forbid they aren't a jesus freak who also wants to ban abortion and put mandatory prayer in schools so they don't get elected. And in all honesty, most of the electorate doesn't want those things either, but they are convinced that this is what a "real republican" is supposed to be.

Its that sort of **** that we need to get rid of. And thus we need to get rid of the party system all together. But that won't happen.
 
voting for someone who cannot win, aka, third party is IMO a wasted vote.

If I don't vote, then the candidate that I hate the most would receive the equivalent of two votes. If I voted, then the other side has to have a matching vote to tie it up and another to go ahead. If my vote is not there, either because I "wasted" it on an non-viable candidate or didn't vote, then the side I oppose the most pulls ahead by one vote on my vote/non-vote, therefore, granting them the equivalent of two votes. The one vote that would tie it up and the other vote the one to go ahead.

As to voting for someone you hate being wasted, that is only true if you don't hate the opposing candidate more. AKA, choosing the lesser of two evils.

Giving a candidate that you obviously don't like a go-ahead vote because you used on a non-viable candidate would fit the definition of wasted.
 
DVSentinel said:
voting for someone who cannot win, aka, third party is IMO a wasted vote.

If I don't vote, then the candidate that I hate the most would receive the equivalent of two votes. If I voted, then the other side has to have a matching vote to tie it up and another to go ahead. If my vote is not there, either because I "wasted" it on an non-viable candidate or didn't vote, then the side I oppose the most pulls ahead by one vote on my vote/non-vote, therefore, granting them the equivalent of two votes. The one vote that would tie it up and the other vote the one to go ahead.

As to voting for someone you hate being wasted, that is only true if you don't hate the opposing candidate more. AKA, choosing the lesser of two evils.

Giving a candidate that you obviously don't like a go-ahead vote because you used on a non-viable candidate would fit the definition of wasted.
Click to expand...

What if the only reason the 3rd party candidate can't win is because people are scared of wasting a vote?
 
Caine said:
Which is why political parties in general should be done away with.

Parties are not NECESSARY. They are like voting for which street gang you want to run the country, which gang you want to be dominate in the Washington "turf wars".

We should move to a system where we are voting for PEOPLE. But it is so much easier for the ignorant Reality TV voter to just align themselves with a party and not have to do any research than it is to learn what each candidate at each level of government stands for.

Instead we have state legislature members running on a platform that conforms to NATIONAL politics, but none of those national issues are relevant to their state's specific problems... and idiots vote based upon that.

We also have guys and gals that hold very sensible positions on major issues, but because those positions they hold on the issues are CROSS PARTY, they don't stand a ****ing chance in hell of getting elected because they might be, lets say, in support of lowering spending but heaven forbid they aren't a jesus freak who also wants to ban abortion and put mandatory prayer in schools so they don't get elected. And in all honesty, most of the electorate doesn't want those things either, but they are convinced that this is what a "real republican" is supposed to be.

Its that sort of **** that we need to get rid of. And thus we need to get rid of the party system all together. But that won't happen.
Click to expand...
Parties are a more formal way of arranging alliances between members of the congress designed to forward goals they agree with.

The problem is they have become more used to enforce the ideas of those running the parties than to facilitate advancement of the ideals of the party's members
 
VanceMack said:
This year is the best example I have seen to date as to why voting major party for the sake of voting major party is corrupt and has led us to where we are.

I will caveat that. If you sincerely ponder your vote and believe not only that the party platform you align yourself with is most directly connected to your political beliefs but also that the candidate you are voting for supports those ideas...by all means...vote major party.

The GOP have been stuck with a candidate that the party did not want. Thats really their fault. The GOP has squandered their party voters faith by not being an effective governing branch and not acting responsibly in congress. When presented with 17 different options, GOP voters focused on the one that was most unlike a typical party shill than all the rest. i dont think people 'like' Trump, but they believe him when he says he will address the illegal immigration problem. or that he will actually speak the words terrorist attack and will work to prevent terrorists from entering the country. He has business sense so when he talks about jobs creation it is different from what they are used to. And frankly...the OP base just doesnt trust the GOP.

The democrat voter base is also fairly well divided. Only the most myopic partisan muppets actually like the job congress is doing...ANY of them. Many were very willing and eager to turn to Bernie Sanders. Most of them will eat that **** brownie and vote for Hilary...but they will hate it in the process because they really cant stand her. It didnt help when it was disclosed that Sanders was being butt****ed by the DNC and that the whole process is being undermined by media posing as 'journalists' that are colluding with the DNC.

If you vote for the GOP after all this mess...nothing will change. If you vote for Hillary after KNOWING the whole thing was a sham...same deal.

THATS a waste, IMO.
Click to expand...

The GOP did want Trump: that's why they nominated him.

You can't simply lie like the boy who cried wolf and then complain when gullible, fear-driven people continue to take those lies seriously.
 
Kreton said:
I wholeheartedly believe that there will not be hope until people start voting for candidates they truly believe in. Not the who the like the most, or dislike the least, between 2 people.
Click to expand...

That's one way to put it. The dislike factor typically means you don't believe in that candidate or in my case, either Trump or Clinton. I do believe that either one of those two will leave this country in much worst shape once he or she leaves office than when he or she first entered.

Around 55% of all America doesn't believe in Clinton and 60% don't believe in Trump to use your word. It is actually even worst than that. A Quinnipiac poll asked the question of Clinton supporters, "Is your vote for Clinton or against Trump?" 50% answered against Trump which means out of her 44% that she is at in the polls, only 22% are actually for her. The same question was asked of Trump supporters, 45% said they were actually for Trump, 55% against Clinton. So of his 39% in the polls, only 18% are actually for him, the other 21% against Clinton.

So we about to have an election where only 22% of the entire electorate is for Clinton and 18% for Trump and one of those two will end up being president just to keep the other one out of the Oval office. Not that they like them or believe in them.
 
The Mark said:
Parties are a more formal way of arranging alliances between members of the congress designed to forward goals they agree with.

The problem is they have become more used to enforce the ideas of those running the parties than to facilitate advancement of the ideals of the party's members
Click to expand...

I see no benefit from arranged alliances (aka making "teams" or "gangs") between members of congress.
 
Crovax said:
I would say it depends on your political affiliation and what state you live in
Click to expand...

Why?

What percent of elections are decided by just one vote? And regardless of what party or what state, why would you vote for someone you don't think would do a good job in that position? Wouldn't a protest vote (write in) be better? Or if another party had a better candidate, why not vote for that person regardless of party affiliation? Parties are just clubs, anyhow. We have lots of liberals who run as republicans, and lots of conservatives who run as democrats, and libertarians who run as republicans, etc.
 
Kreton said:
I have heard countless times that a vote for a 3rd party is a wasted vote.
Click to expand...

Countless times, you have been incorrectly informed.

The only wasted vote is a vote for a candidate that you don't think would do the best job.
 
imagep said:
Countless times, you have been incorrectly informed.

The only wasted vote is a vote for a candidate that you don't think would do the best job.
Click to expand...

Then nobody should vote.... ever.

Nobody is ever 100% satisfied, in their own heart, with the candidate they end up choosing.

(Unless your entire basis for voting is because of something dumb like, "He is black" or "She is a female" and you "want to make history!!!" )
 
Absentglare said:
The GOP did want Trump: that's why they nominated him.

You can't simply lie like the boy who cried wolf and then complain when gullible, fear-driven people continue to take those lies seriously.
Click to expand...
You arent stupid enough to actually believe the GOP...the party politik...wanted/wants Trump. You cant be. I refuse to believe it.
 
Kreton said:
I do not disagree that that is what is going to happen.

It is sad that we have reached this point in American politics that the 2 major parties and literally put up any 2 candidates and people will still put them in office.
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly.

This is the worst I have ever witnessed, in all my 57 years on this earth.

:(
 
VanceMack said:
You arent stupid enough to actually believe the GOP...the party politik...wanted/wants Trump. You cant be. I refuse to believe it.
Click to expand...

It seems to me... and this is just me..... that the GOP voters are the only people with the balls to actually SHOW that they are tired of typical Washington politicians selling us lies from their silver tongues.

Democrats are content to stay with the status quo of failure.

However, Trump may have not been the right candidate for this endeavor.
If Democrats were serious about wanting change.... they would have given Old Man Sanders a chance.

Oh, wait, nevermind... Democrat voters had nothing to do with the nomination.
 
Kreton said:
What if the only reason the 3rd party candidate can't win is because people are scared of wasting a vote?
Click to expand...

That IS the only reason they can't win.

The main two parties are the ones who perpetuates that wasted vote myth. 50% of the power is much better than a third or a quarter of the power.
 
Kreton said:
I do not disagree that that is what is going to happen.

It is sad that we have reached this point in American politics that the 2 major parties and literally put up any 2 candidates and people will still put them in office.
Click to expand...

To be fair.... with the 2 major parties control who gets to be heard..... we are only ever going to hear from the two major parties.

And the day that Fox News goes away, is the day we only hear from ONE party........
 
Caine said:
It seems to me... and this is just me..... that the GOP voters are the only people with the balls to actually SHOW that they are tired of typical Washington politicians selling us lies from their silver tongues.

Democrats are content to stay with the status quo of failure.

However, Trump may have not been the right candidate for this endeavor.
If Democrats were serious about wanting change.... they would have given Old Man Sanders a chance.

Oh, wait, nevermind... Democrat voters had nothing to do with the nomination.
Click to expand...
If Trump was really playing the wild card, he should have run as an independent. That would have been interesting.
 
VanceMack said:
If Trump was really playing the wild card, he should have run as an independent. That would have been interesting.
Click to expand...

He wouldn't have gotten any attention.

Similar to the fact that Gary Johnson is getting virtually no attention... nor Jill Stein.
 
Caine said:
Then nobody should vote.... ever.

Nobody is ever 100% satisfied, in their own heart, with the candidate they end up choosing.

(Unless your entire basis for voting is because of something dumb like, "He is black" or "She is a female" and you "want to make history!!!" )
Click to expand...

From a purely selfish aspect, voting isn't even rational for the individual. There is no individual reward of wealth from doing it, although I assume that maybe we get some sort of emotional satisfaction from it.
 
To the extent that voting for someone who won't win is a wasted vote, then at this point, voting for Trump is a wasted vote. It's pretty clear that Trump will not win and he doesn't have enough time to turn things around. Thus by the "wasted vote theory", the only votes that are not wasted are votes for Shillary.

Imagine that, nearly 50% of our votes are wasting their votes - between Trump and the third party candidates.
 
VanceMack said:
You arent stupid enough to actually believe the GOP...the party politik...wanted/wants Trump. You cant be. I refuse to believe it.
Click to expand...

They nominated him.

They had no better choice. It defaulted to Trump.
 
Caine said:
It seems to me... and this is just me..... that the GOP voters are the only people with the balls to actually SHOW that they are tired of typical Washington politicians selling us lies from their silver tongues.

Democrats are content to stay with the status quo of failure.

However, Trump may have not been the right candidate for this endeavor.
If Democrats were serious about wanting change.... they would have given Old Man Sanders a chance.

Oh, wait, nevermind... Democrat voters had nothing to do with the nomination.
Click to expand...

LOL yeah, the GOP had the "balls" to vote for a horrible person. Good one.
 
imagep said:
From a purely selfish aspect, voting isn't even rational for the individual. There is no individual reward of wealth from doing it, although I assume that maybe we get some sort of emotional satisfaction from it.
Click to expand...

I am beginning to think voting is becoming more and more irrelevant anyways.

But the time election day comes.... the media propagandists have already chosen for you who you will vote for based on the amount of positive or negative coverage they collectively decide to give a candidate.
Not to mention **** like the unresolved issues of the Democratic primary where there are multiple districts that claim votes weren't counted properly..... and the party itself choosing who to support and not support in the primary process.

As it stands, we vote only because we keep getting told to vote..... similarly to why everyone in the movie "Idiocracy" put Brawndo on the plants... because they kept on getting told it has what plants crave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom